
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 10b Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 –Do Not proceed with the Project.
Cost Implications: $350,000
Pros:
(1) No additional capital investment required.
Cons:
(1) TNC operations continue to be supported by temporary lighting and restroom facilities.
(2) The Port does not take advantage of a $1.2 Million grant opportunity to support electric
vehicles.
(3) Operation and maintenance costs are not reduced due to the continuation of temporary
facilities.
(4) Temporary lighting facilities continue to generate greenhouse gas emissions.
(5) The project costs to date would need to be expensed.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Provide Permanent Lighting and Electric Vehicle Chargers
Cost Implications: $5,600,000
Pros:
(1) Lower capital investment required.
(2) The Port takes advantage of a $1.2 Million grant opportunity to support electric
vehicles.
(3) Operation and maintenance costs are reduced by the elimination of temporary lighting
facilities.
Cons:
(1) TNC operations continue to be supported by temporary restroom facilities, an area of
concern with the current operating agreement between the Port and the TNC
operators.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Provide Permanent Lighting, Electric Vehicle Chargers, and Restrooms
Cost Implications: $7,300,000
Pros:
(1) TNC operations are supported by permanent lighting and restroom facilities, addressing
an area of concern with the current operating agreement.
(2) The Port takes advantage of a $1.2 Million grant opportunity to support electric
vehicles.
(3) Operation and maintenance costs are reduced by the elimination of temporary lighting
facilities.